This past Sunday, as reported by Sam Hodges of The Dallas Morning News, Mrs. Jackie Roese preached the Sunday morning message to the 3,500 people who attended the Irving Bible Church. Jackie preached, according to Executive Pastor Steve Roese (who is also Jackie's husband) "under the authority of an elder board that will continue to be all male."

(1). The accounts of creation and the fall (Genesis 1-3) reveal a fundamental equality between men and women.(2). Women exercised significant ministry roles of teaching and leading with God's blessing in both the Old and New Testaments.(3). Though the role of women was historically limited, the progress of revelation indicates an ethic in progress leading to full freedom for women to exercise their giftedness in the local church.(4). Key New Testament passages restricting women's roles were culturally and historically specific, not universal principles for all time and places.(5). Though women are free to use all of their giftedness in teaching and leading the church, the role of elder seems to be biblically relegated to men.

This last point, number five, is precisely what the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message states in Article VI on the church; "While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture." Conclusions 1-4 are interpretations of the elders of the Irving Bible Church, supported by a 24 page White Paper that is linked on the front page of the church's website. Through their interpretation of the infallible text, and after identifying the particular giftedness for teaching possessed by Mrs. Roese, the elders requested she teach during the Sunday morning worship service.

The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, stated that Irving Bible's Church decision to have the Executive Pastor's wife preach last Sunday morning was "a matter of grave moral concern." The Council, including Southern Baptists Paige and Dorothy Patterson, Al Mohler, Bruce Ware and others plan to publicly express their "moral" concerns over what happened at Irving Bible Church last Sunday. Tom Nelson, pastor of a neighboring Bible church to Irving's Bible Church, expressed the sentiments of the Council when he stated to the Dallas Morning News, "I believe this issue is the carrier of a virus by which liberalism will enter the evangelical church. [Since she was allowed to preach], then maybe the Bible will not be finally true on premarital sex, the homosexual issue, adultery or any other moral issue."

Some days I really wonder if God intentionally made us who are conservative evangelicals mentally dull. To be a trophy of grace means you have to be in need of His favor, and maybe that from which we need to be rescued is moral stupidity. Let me show you what I mean.

(1). Irving Bible Church is a conservative, evangelical church that believes the Bible - as evidenced by their White Paper. Their conclusions on women's ministry in the church parallel EXACTLY those of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message.(2). On secondary issues, such as whether or not a woman can preach or teach in the congregation under the authority of male elders (and in Irving Bible's case, the woman's husband), the Irving Bible Church says the Bible allows it. The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood says the Bible does not allow it. Fine. There is disagreement. (3). But those fellow conservatives who disagree with Irving Bible Church's conclusions, including the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, have called the decision of Irving Bible concern "a matter of grave moral concern."(4). Irving Bible Church and her godly, Bible believing elders are now being compared to people who condone sodomy, adultery, and sexual immoral activity - all because a woman who believes in the inerrant, infallible Word of God, preached the gospel of Jesus Christ to sinners in need of a Savior. Ugh.

Folks, this is precisely what is happening in the Southern Baptist Convention. The 2000 Baptist Faith and Message forbids a woman from serving as Senior Pastor. But a small, select group of SBC leaders are seeking to force an interpretation of the Bible that goes well BEYOND the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message on ALL Southern Baptists. Women, say these leaders, cannot teach the Bible (or Hebrew) to men; women can't lead men on the mission field by being in a position of "authority" over men (and thus women are being removed from administrative positions in the IMB); no Southern Baptist woman can serve as a hospital, business, or military chaplain; and no woman can "preach" the gospel in a local church (without risk of being placed in the category of "moral concerns") - even though EVERY ONE OF THESE ISSUES is not addressed by the 2000 BFM!

Southern Baptist women should work at home, teach the kids, do the dishes, and for HEAVEN'S SAKE, never, ever think about teaching a man anything about the Bible! That is, unless your name is Beth Moore and you pull in $750,000 an event for LifeWay at rallies and Bible studies across the nation attended by both men and women.

I personally agree with the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message on male eldership (pastors), and our pastoral staff at Emmanuel has eight men in that role. So does Irving Bible Church. Why, then the name calling? I shiver when I hear my fellow evangelicals call a church that asks a woman to preach the gospel on Sunday morning a church of "grave moral concern." WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT FEMALE PASTORS!

That my friends, is an illustration of what I see happening in the SBC. We have been told cooperation is around affirmation of the 2000 BFM, but a select group of leaders have narrowed the doctrinal parameters of cooperation by forcing conformity of belief on doctrines that FAR EXCEED the 2000 BFM.

123 comments:

Isn't the sort of thinking that the CBMW is showing .. and all the other naysayers, too .. the early stages of what led to people finding themselves atop firewood, tied to a stake? Or other unspeakable acts committed a few hundred years ago?

What's the difference between making that historic leap, and making the leap from a woman preaching/teaching with the Elders' permission, to saying "...maybe the Bible will not be finally true on premarital sex, the homosexual issue, adultery or any other moral issue"?

Is it not possible for a group of serious Bible scholars to make a serious mistake by comparing men who allow a woman to preach the gospel to men who condone homosexuality?

Just asking.

By the way, reread Bob's first sentence . . .

Isn't the sort of thinking that the CBMW . . .

Bob is calling into question CBMW's thinking, not their character, and if one is unable to call into question someone's thinking because they he or she is considered "serious Bible scholars" then we become sycophants rather than Bereans who "searched the Scriptures" to see whether or not what the Apostle said was true.

You quoted Tom Nelson, who said, "I believe this issue is the carrier of a virus by which liberalism will enter the evangelical church. (Since she was allowed to preach), then maybe the Bible will not be finally true on premarital sex, the homosexual issue, adultery or any other moral issue."

My convictions probably fall somewhere between yours and Mr. Nelson's. I think his statement is a little outlandish, frankly.

You said that he "expressed the sentiments of the council."

Was he an official spokesman for the CBMW? Or are you just postulating that his view would be the one held by the CBMW?

Tom Nelson is not the official spokesmen for the CBMW, but his words are consistent with the CBMW's declaration that Irving Bible Churches decision is a "grave moral concern."

Every issue Tom mentioned is a "grave moral concern."

If, Tom's list of adultery, homosexuality and sexually immorality does NOT represent CBMW's list of "grave moral concerns," I would be happy to stand corrected. Having read, however, all of the material on CBMW's website, I can assure you Tommy's position is reflective of CBMW's.

I must admit that the extra-Biblical or non-Biblical positions of those who push forward the Baptist Identity philosophy present to me "a matter of grave moral concern," especially when I think of the preaching, teaching, and Biblical writing that could have been done instead by these fine Christian people.

Women, on occasion, spoke in the chapel at SEBTS after Dr. Patterson arrived. I was there at the final days of Drummond and the beginning days of Dr. Patterson. I also attended for 3 years Criswell College and am grateful for all God did through Dr. Patterson to see the SBC ship turned.

I recall one woman's words... (not verbatim), "I stand here today not in a position of authority but under the authoritative umbrella of my husband." I was very happy to hear this stated.

My wife has spoken (some would call it preaching) in the church I pastor. She can preach better than me so I don't let her do it often. ;-)

May God forgive us and heal us so we can get back to the business of the kingdom and win a lost world to Him.

This argument... the "Holy Umbrella" argument... is in my opinion one of the weakest for women in the ministry. This decision wreaks of compromise; either a woman can preach and pastor or she can't (you know what I believe). This idea of preaching under the authority of an elder board is totally foreign to the Word of God.

As for why conservatives continue to tie this issue in with homosexuality and sexual immorality; it is because that crowd uses the same faulty logic and biblical interpretation. Notice in point this quote... The elder board found that "some verses restricting women's roles "were culturally and historically specific, not universal principles for all times and places." ...and... "They concluded that despite "problem" passages, the Bible doesn't prohibit a woman from instructing men in theological matters."

Once we can see past the cultural and historical implications, and get around those "problem" passages we can all make the Bible say whatever we want.

I think it a stretch to imply that Tommy Nelson was equating this church with homosexuality, pre marital sex and adultery. His point is simply that this kind of a faulty hermeneutic (IBC's point 4) leads to the acceptance or at least the bypassing of these issues in the evangelical church. You seem to imply that Tommy Nelson is "Mentally dull" or "Morally Stupid". Certainly that is not your intent. Especially in light of the fact that Tommy Nelson has no dog in the SBC fight. He is trying to control no one. Imagine that, A evangelical can have a strong conviction without it being politically motivated. BTW, I also agree with the Beth Moore thing

Perhaps this comment will demonstrate to the BI/CB guys that I am not the new Ben Cole. :)

I've got to disagree with you on this one. I think the statement on Men-only as Senior Pastor is intended to cover and is sufficient to cover preaching.

I agree that BFM2K is a consensus statement of essential SBC beliefs and we should not go more than or less than the statement to characterize what Southern Baptists believe. I just can't make as big of a loophole as you're trying to do here.

"Tom Nelson, pastor of a neighboring Bible church to Irving's Bible Church, expressed the sentiments of the Council when he stated to the Dallas Morning News, "I believe this issue is the carrier of a virus by which liberalism will enter the evangelical church. (Since she was allowed to preach), then maybe the Bible will not be finally true on premarital sex, the homosexual issue, adultery or any other moral issue.""

This makes no sense because Patriarchal cultures were (and still are) rife with homosexuality, concubines, prostitutes, etc.

Homosexuality is a sin. Premartial sex is a sin. A woman proclaiming the word to anyone, regardless of gender, is not a sin. If it were, then Paul in 1 Corin 11 did not see fit to point that out for that church in Corinth. Neither did Peter silence the women at Pentecost.

"Once we can see past the cultural and historical implications, and get around those "problem" passages we can all make the Bible say whatever we want."

Such as Christians using scripture to condone the owning of slaves? Was that a cultural interpretation?

Whether you agree with Les or Wade, you have to agree on one thing......"a matter of grave moral concern."? Wow. Only 17% of the 236,000 people that live in my area "go to church".......that's a matter of grave moral concern.

When I lived in Atlanta I was invited to hear Anne Graham Lotz speak ( PREACH ) to us to promote "JUST GIVE ME JESUS" crusade she was bring to Atlanta the next year.

There were DOZENS of Big Name SBC pastors in attendance. Now, you can say she was just speaking but it was one of the best "SERMONS" I've ever heard. I don't get why people are finding "grave" moral concerns with IBC. She is under the authority of the Elders.

Don't we have better things to worry about? Like millions of people spending eternity away from God if they don't hear?

I believe that evangelicals who hold to male servant leadership are going to have to give some "wiggle room" to how that is worked out in various contexts. Both the Bible church here and the council agree on the main point.

I am not on the council and would probably not be asked to join, but my own thinking would be pick the battles that are really worth fighting and be judicious in the selection of language. I appreciate all of the people mentioned in this story, and hate to see what appear to be divisive comments.

Having said all of that, I object to this for other reasons.

I would NEVER want the spouses of current staff to start preaching. It reminds me of these husband/wife co-pastor arrangements that one sees now, especially in pentecostal churches. It's really creepy. I can't find it in the Bible, but there is a huge "yuck" factor for me that would make me want to avoid those situations.

Plus, I don't blieve it is wise policy to employ more than one person from the same family - especially in the pulpit.

Don't ever put anyone in the pulpit that you can't criticize or fire! One can't do that to their own spouse.

I'd like to just make an observation from Les Puryear's post...he wrote: "I agree that BFM2K is a consensus statement of essential SBC beliefs and we should not go more than or less than the statement to characterize what Southern Baptists believe."

Having said that, how come others within the SBC have no problem surpassing the BFM2000 with ludicrous guidelines set by the IMB trustees for who can and cannot serve with the board? Why aren't more people standing up against this?

The BFM2000 is very clear...no where does it state that the believer needs to be immersed in a SBC church. "Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

If I may be so bold, would the IMB, had it been around, deny Jesus Christ himself the opportunity to serve? He, after all, was not Southern Baptist, nor was he baptized in a Southern Baptist church...or any building for that matter. And what about Paul? Peter? James? John the Baptist? And all the others that followed...none were Southern Baptist. We admire these people, yet, had the IMB been around then, NOT ONE of these men would have been good enough to serve with the International Mission Board because of the "guideline" on baptism.

As for private prayer language...I will start with the "age old" argument that is it PRIVATE! 'Private' is defined as "personal and not publicly expressed." I don't have a PPL, but if I did, why should it matter if I choose to talk to my God, my Savior and Lord in my own language? On a much smaller scale, how is it any different than having your own private/special language with a sibling or a best friend? God is the maker of the universe, and if his most prized possessions (us) want to have a special PRIVATE language with him, in their prayer closet, then I see no problem. But to deny someone who wants to serve because they have a PRIVATE language between them self and their Lord is just beyond me.

I have been told by someone within the SBC that "God doesn't work that way anymore," referring to PPL. Well. That is a bold statement. One that I am glad I won't be answering for. There is no way, no how, I am going to limit my God like that. What about "nothing is impossible for God?" The IMB trustees need to reevaluate their unscriptural decision. Southern Baptists need to stand up and have their voices heard.

Well, I am going to leave it at that for now. I could fill this comment box to the max (if that is possible) talking about this. I pray that more SB will stand up for what they believe in like Wade has.

I suppose my mind is a bit on the simpler side of this issue. I see a difference between preaching and pastoring. Preaching is only one part of the role(s) of a pastor. Preaching is simply the proclamation of truth. Truth that is given y God to the person preaching. Women can and should teach truth to both men and women. Along with this, is it wrong for me to listen to woman teach?

For example, if a Beth Moore Bible Study is being played in the church somewhere and I stop to listen does that make Beth Moore a sinner? What about me since I stopped to listen? Something to consider.

The saddest part of this is that many young believers (and non-believers) are watching these kinds of arguments and are walking away from the church. The latest statistics prove this to be true. We have an increasing percentage of the population who are not believers and we have increasing percentage of believers who are becoming more disenchanted with the church and how she acts. This breaks my heart.

If the issue is pastoral authority then take it from me, the concept of the authority of the Pastor is highly over rated in the typical Baptist Church! Now if my wife were the Pastor, then authority would be restored to the office!!!

"Such as Christians using scripture to condone the owning of slaves? Was that a cultural interpretation?"

Yes it was, and it was wrong. Just as it is wrong to disallow the application of a text in modernity due to the context of a ancient culture. Playing loose with the culture is a poor hermeneutic whether it is modern or ancient culture. I am not saying to ignore the culture, that also is equally wrong. However, Nelson's point is that the simple disregard of ancient culture in the application of a text leads to the dilution if not the destruction of the authority of the text. Not to mention it intrudes on the omniscience of God in all things and His preserving of the text for all generations.

If allowing a woman to speak under the supervision of the elders is a "grave moral concern," then I would say that allowing a non-believer to be baptized (as in infant baptism) would be a "grave moral concern." Yet, I don't see Dr. Mohler breaking ties with Dr. Ligon Duncan. Why doesn't the CBMW speak out against paedobaptism? Maybe because they have "agreed to disagree?"

I guess I better burn all those Kay Arthur books. It's a good thing that her son is poised to head that ministry. Unfortunately, he's a paedobaptist Presbyterian...sigh...

With the utmost respect I would like to ask, who gets to say what is a right or wrong hermeneutic? It seem to me that most everyone is a little loose with the word.

We are over run with an "inconsistant hermeneutic" from the left and the right. It seems every preacher and scholar thinks only their point of view is inerrant.

What we have is over 2000 non-Catholic, religious organizations and each has an opinion (or thousands of opinions) what is proper application and interpretation of Gods Word.

Add to that the Roman Catholics, and all the other Catholics, then add to that the extreme left and the extreme right. Add to that the African point of view and the Middle East and the Korean (you get the picture.)

It is God's job to hand out gifts. He doesn't need our permission.

It seems to me that liberalism grows in proportion to the craziness of fundamentalism.

I wish someone would ask the top leaders of the SBC's "identity" club how many people they have led to the Lord in the last 10 years. Or for that matter how many have they led to the Lord in their entire lives?

"It reminds me of these husband/wife co-pastor arrangements that one sees now, especially in pentecostal churches. It's really creepy. I can't find it in the Bible, but there is a huge "yuck" factor for me that would make me want to avoid those situations."

"However, Nelson's point is that the simple disregard of ancient culture in the application of a text leads to the dilution if not the destruction of the authority of the text. Not to mention it intrudes on the omniscience of God in all things and His preserving of the text for all generations."

So, I take it your wife always wears a headcovering in worship in order not to dilute the authority of the text?

Wade, I am glad to see you back to blogging. I have missed your insights.

To comment on the issue of this post:I believe women are fully human, as much as men. I find the quibbles over what women can and cannot do laughable at best. Either they can do anything God calls them to do or they can do nothing but what some man (husband, father, whatever) tells them to do simply because of biology. Saying anything in between is an exercise in drawing lines that make no sense.

How is a woman preaching (or whatever they call it in such a case) under the authority of anyone (elders, husband, etc.)? (I know in I Corinthians it says women are suposed to cover their heads when they pray or prophesy and I don't remember reading anything about her doing this in this case, so maybe that is their objection.) Unless they approve her sermon beforehand (and even then, she might say something different) she is speaking without restraint. If it is being broadcast, I suppose there can be a censor controllng what is actually going out, and bleeping unapproved words. But she is still speaking as she wills. Will they immediately jump up and silence her if they disagree? Even so, the words cannot be unsaid or unheard.

I know I am female so to many my thoughts and words don't count, but thank you for letting us less than human creatures have a say.:-)

this comment may be a little off topic...but it seems to me that the bigger question that evangelicals are raising today (i.e. scriptural inerrancy) is infinitely more important when it comes to how we view these issues of women in minstry or homosexuality. I don't know enough about the SBC to know if this is on their radar screen yet or not but some of the issues raised by biblical critics within the realm of evangelicalism really makes this discussion rather moot. Postmodern views of scripture are having a great impact on evangelicals today so it seems from this discussion we are straining a gnat without seeing the camel already in the building.

again, I know it is a little off-topic but wonder where the SBC is in this issue.

This is amazing to me. I attended Southeastern during the Patterson years. Every now and again during chapel he would allow for an open Q and A session. This specific question was asked of him and his reply was that women have the freedom to speak/preach provided they are under the authority of a male pastor. By the way he said that his wife had and could speak/preach and the reason that she wore a head covering was to symbolize that she was under her husbands authority. I actually changed my view on this issue once I heard him articulate it in chapel that day. Unless they have undergone some dramatic change my understanding is that their interpretation is the same as yours, at least on the preaching issue.

Without having read any of the other comments on this blog, I am giving my affirmation. My affirmation is, of course, worth exactly what you paid for it. ;)

As one who used to stand in the camp of the legalistic and say with such "Biblical authority" that women should not be allowed to teach or preach, I can say that I have come to my senses and now have a "more Biblical" viewpoint on the issue - All believers, male and female, would be well-served to take a step back, take a close, objective look at the Word, examine our own hearts, and heed the teaching, advice, and dare I say, PREACHING of the Word of some godly, Christ-following women.

And as far as the Beth Moore $ and conference reference in Wade's blog - I feel led to quote the great words of a 1990's hip-hop song: "Things that make you go hmmm...." :)

The implication is that her freedom is limited by the invitation or request of the senior pastor. The only reason she is speaking from the pulpit is because she has been invited to do so by the senior pastor.

You make a valid point. I am not a member of the BI group as it is defined here, but I think your challenge is valid.

Lydia

My point is not that you cannot recognize cultural issues in the interpretation of a text. The head covering issue is an excellent case in point. I am not at all saying that one cannot find biblical instructions which certainly are for the purpose of addressing very specific issues which may or may not apply in modernity. No one is making that argument. All I am saying is that you cannot apply that particular rule (Cultural) to the issue of female preachers and more specifically female pastors. There is a broader biblical context to this issue found throughout scripture. I am not even chunking rocks at IBC or any other church that sees it differently, I am just defending the statement made by Tommy Nelson, who by the way, is not Southern Baptist and is a far cry from a fundamentalist.

Glad to have you back Wade. There are some who may be scared of you, but they ought not be. You have done more to raise my opinion of Southern Baptists than any one person I've read. You write well, don't make an *&*% of yourself, and you pastor one of the largest SBC churches in the entire Southern Baptist Convention. I agreed with anonymous poster in the earlier post about rejoicing over you blogging again. Some SBC leaders may not be trembling at the thought you are back, but they definitely will pause before they shoot off at the mouth again knowing someone out there is not afraid to hold them accountable.

This decision wreaks of compromise; either a woman can preach and pastor or she can't (you know what I believe). This idea of preaching under the authority of an elder board is totally foreign to the Word of God.

For me, as a pastor/preacher, I am only allowed to stand and preach under the authority of Jesus Christ. That is my calling and in line with scripture.

My wife has willingly and joyfully placed herself under my authority, as her husband --- which does not negate her place under the authority of Jesus Christ.

When she has spoken in church, from the pulpit, she did so under my authority, with my urging and blessing. She did not seek this nor does she desire this to be a regular thing. We both clearly understand from scripture that as the husband, I am the head of the home (under Christ) and she is my helpmate. No less in the eyes of God than myself and no more.

Some will read into this as me being somewhat a dictator. It could be if not rightfully under the Lordship of Jesus but this is where I must work to make sure there is nothing less than His will being lined up with in our lives.

We discovered the joy of this without jumping through any theological hurdles trying to be something scripture does not teach.

RE: Hermaneutics: Paul told the Corinthian women not to cut their hair short. I heard a prominent SBC leader say (this is also my position) that the point was women should not dress like prostitutes (as marked by short hair in those days). How do we determine when the command is "for all time" or for a specific situation.

RE: Male Authority: After 21 years of marriage I am trying to remember if my wife and I ever discussed this. She decides the less important things like where we will live and how we will raise our children while I handle the important stuff like whether to declare nuclear war on a foreign power.

RE: Biblical meaning: What does Paul mean when he says "there is no difference between male or female"? Is this passage salvific only?

RE: Accusations: Could we limit the comments to what people ACTUALLY say and do and not bring in to question our opinion of THEIR MOTIVES or what they MIGHT do?

The Democrats have suddenly developed a keen sense of morality. John Edwards has been banned from making a speech at the Democratic National Convention for having an affair and lying about it. In his place, Bill Clinton will be the speaker.O.K. folks, just what is it that I am missing here????????????

E-mail from one of my High School Classmates. Who happens to live in Arkansas?

"When she has spoken in church, from the pulpit, she did so under my authority, with my urging and blessing." What does this really mean? Someone who is up in front speaking assumes authority to speak whether or not under some authoritarian structure.

If the women is simply a mouthpiece for a man then why is she up there in the first place? Let's call it what it is and not try to whitewash the fact that we are giving women authority to speak...and to teach and proclaim, etc.

My wife and I have come to a completely different position on husband/wife relationships in regards to authority and we, too, use our understanding of the text of scripture as our guide we believe.

That said, I really like your heart as expressed in your comment that shows a desire to obey the Lord, to know what the text of scripture really says and a desire to not be condemned as a dictator [or heretic I might add] because you see it a different way than others perhaps do.

Well expressed. My sentiments exactly though from a different understanding of the text.

Differences don't hurt us on the secondary issues.I believe all of us here would say there are some things which are not negotiable. Having a non pastor woman testify, from a pulpit, about the love of Jesus should not be a divisive issue.

I have often wondered about this idea of women 'being under their authority' thing. Or 'covering' as some like to call it. This is what Mrs. Criswell rationalized when she taught a very large mixed class even though her husband was not usually in the room. I am not so sure any man would dare have said no to her anyway. ;o) (Are there special rules for certain women in the comp arena like Beth Moore and Mrs. Criswell, among others? For example, if one comp pastor wants to allow his wife to preach, do other comp pastors just have to grin and bear it?. Wait! Maybe they can call it a 'Grave moral concern' and shame them into stopping it!

I wonder, like Suzie, if any of the men would jump up and take the mic away from her if they thought she taught something wrong. Would any man in the audience have the authority to do that? Or just elders? Does she give a pre approved message to them? If the Holy Spirit gives her something more indepth, I guess it is not allowed? But then, perhaps women do not have the same anointing we read about for all believers in 1 John so we should not worry about that.

What about men preaching. Do we assume they are always under a 'male only' special direct authority of Christ that women cannot have when preaching to all? (All because because of authenteo which is debatable no matter what Kostenburger wants to ignore and, of course 1 Tim 3 where single men cannot be elders, either. Sad for Paul)

So, because the preacher is male, there is never the possibility that some other man with MORE earthly authority than the one speaking is going to run over and grab the mic in case he says something wrong? No, male false teachers would get a free pass because they are male.

But a woman preacher who is NOT a false teacher is still a 'Grave Moral Concern' for us all.

We need a new Christian Talmud for all these rules and roles.

Anyone else notice how much 'authority over others' has become the the big issue in Christendom. And all this time, I thought it was servanthood.

"Do you think women ought to witness to lost people, even if they are men?"yes, I think they should

"Whether you like it or not or agree with it, when my wife spoke, she did it under my authority, as I was obedient to the authority of my life, Jesus." If a man is asked to speak isn't it done under your authotiry as well? What's the diff?

My point is that I think this "under male authority" is a feel-good approach that allows us to let women preach.

In case my previous posts were not clear about where I stand on this issue I believe women teaching, preaching, etc. is a great thing, if they are gifted for it; and I believe the biblical prohibitions are cultural, reflecting the male-dominated world of the time as I have come to view scripture from a more postmodern perspective...which I have come to find out is not particularly popular in the SBC.

In my desire to be subtle in responding to Jon with my comment, [which was meant totally] I'm afraid some might miss my point that the issue of a bible church, having come to a different view than others might hold on the issue of women in ministry, being labeled as becoming involved in a grave moral failure as your post stated, is ridiculous.

It is that labeling I hear you speaking about... not the need to hold one view or another on that particular issue.

Were my views on women in ministry to be known by the pastor doing the labeling, I would be stricken from the annuals of baptist life, if not the Lamb's book of life, I'm afraid.

Wade,Thanks for taking up the pen, again. It is interesting to me that while all of this discussion is heating up the blog air waves, there are many women faithfully sharing the gospel (preaching or teaching) in whatever position God has placed them. Many of us find that we simply do not have time to check with the Baptist Heirarchy when God moves in a unique and wonderful way...we just move in and get busy in HIS work.Thanks for carrying the torch.Ken ColsonMontana

FYI, I could find no statement on the CBMW website that would support or deny the idea that the pastor above represented their position.

There was a statement by Al Mohler that compared the hermeneutics used to reach the evangelical feminist position to the hermeneutic used to reach acceptance of homosexuality.

In other words, they would say that both positions come more from culture than from the sacred text. I do not think that they would compare them morally. They compared the hermeneutics of the positions, but not the moral reprehensibility.

I have a hard time believing that the decision to which CBMW refers was the decision of Irving Bible Church to study the Bible with "a faulty hermaneutic."

The woman preaching was the decision that the spokesman for CBMW called "a grave moral concern." Just as homosexuality is a grave moral concern. Just as adultery is a grave moral concern. Just as sexual immorality is a grave moral concern.

I have noticed a tendency for some conservative Christian groups to raise the red herrings of the H'word and the L'word whenever they are trying to make a really weak point.

This must be a particularly weak point. A *shock-chock* :rolleyes: *woman* was preaching the *Gospel* in *shiver-shiver* Church and now we must brace ourselves for a wave of liberals and homosexuals as a logical (ha!) consequence.

You say: If Wade DOESN'T move to trying to justify female pastors, how long do we wait before you are officially a lying prophet?"

I never indicated that I believe Wade will or will not one day be trying to justify female pastors. MY comment was simply seeking to amplify the fact that this slippery-slope is inevitable and that the topic will indeed come across his desk one day. Wade made the point in the OP assumedly to the committee and supporters of the CBMW that the issue at hand is one of women preachers and not an issue of pastoral qualifications. I think I was clear in my point that this WILL indeed one day be an unavoidable controversy for every pastor in our Southern Baptist Empire. And, now that you have this commentary on my previous post, you might see how this:

KThe point being, I too feel that this church’s elder board’s decision is a sign of the times and a matter which should concern us all. On a positive note though, I really like the manner in which this church went about seeking the biblical position. I disagree with their findings and am of course not privy to the fine details of their process, but still commend them for the spirit of the process. This reminds me of John Piper’s handling of the “Elder” issue which took he and Bethlehem 12 years to iron out from Scripture back in the 80’s. Maybe some other churches could seek to do the same thing. For instance and just as a close example: Emmanuel’s leadership team could do a collaborative study on the texts of Scripture dealing with the matter of women in ministry and publish their own white paper. In fact, I would like to see a dozen or so low profile pastor theologians and/or lay theologians debate the issue in a sort of modern church counsel setting. The issue is more times than not, clouded by emotion, eisegetical manipulation of Scripture, pragmatic philosophies, and a lack of prayer.

Let me add one more observation. If the picture in Wade's OP is the stage of the Baptist Church in Question, then I think a woman preacher is the least of their issues. Looks to me like a Madonna Concert. I can just picture the woman preacher riding in on that big hanging cross in the background with smoke and lights and mirrors...

I admit I don't follow all the nuances here as clearly as I should.In bold letters, Bro. Wade said that we were not talking about women pastors.So IF we were, would that be a matter of grave moral concern?Not stating my position one way or the other, just asking for clarification.

Wade, I've lurked on your blog for quite some time. I've wanted to post before, but I've held off.

How does this not violate the command in 1 Tim. 2:12 "...suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man..." ?

That scripture is fairly clear to me: women in the church are not to have authority over men nor to teach men. So what she isn't the pastor? That's just a technicality. I assume there were men present that day? Didn't they receive teaching from her?

I think I would have gotten up and walked out. This practice is unbiblical. Any man who sits under teaching like this is doing himself a great injustice. Just as I would never go to a Beth Moore conference thing or even take one of her Bible Studies (for the same reason), I would never go to a church that allowed this sort of thing.

I wish someone would show me where Paul ever commanded anyone not to let women teach. I don't see it, unless you interpret the instructions ... that women should remain silent in church ... to apply (a) to women today, and (b) to teaching.

In context, just as the Bible says, "ALL of Jerusalem went out to follow after Christ" most assuredly means not every single person in the great city of Jerusalem, it is also quite likely that Paul's instruction to Timothy, in context, was for a particular woman and type of woman - suffer not "that" woman to teach. Primarily, the woman or women coming to faith in Christ from the Diana Cults of Corinth, who assumed teaching and authority roles because they were used to women being worshipped. Paul gives Timothy the caution that there needs to be learning, teaching and instruction for (that) woman or (those) women.

It can't be a universal prohibition because of other places in the New Testament where Acquilla AND Priscilla taught men, the seven prophetesses (all sisters) taught men, Lydia opened her home and most assuredly had "authority" over those in her home - no husband is even mentioned. I could go on and on - even using Paul's own comments about women that were participants IN his ministry, including Dorcas and others.

So, the interpretation of that text, by many conservative, evangelicals is that it is a limited prohibition for a certain time and for certain women (or a certain "woman") that Timothy ministered to in the church. He had written to Paul to ask for help on knowing how to handle these ladies (or lady), since they seemed to want to teach and take authority because of their backgrounds, but were definitely not prepared to do so in a Christian manner. They needed to be discipled.

That is one answer to your question.

And, if you don't like the cultural/contextual manner of interpretation, and wish to call it a "liberal" one, just please answer one question for me.

What do you do about Paul's "command" that women come to church with their head covered?

The Eastern Churches that I've visited in Russia, Poland, and the Ukraine take this text literally and say we in the west are "liberal."

I simply interpret that passage in the culture and context of Paul's day.

"The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, stated that Irving Bible's Church decision to have the Executive Pastor's wife preach last Sunday morning was "a matter of grave moral concern.""

Wade,

Could it be that their point is simply that if a group of Christians - church, apparently driven by the desire to culturally accomodate, successfully navigated their way around "problem passages" regarding women preaching yet not pastoring that they also might be tempted to accomodate to culture in other ways? Certainly the linkage between Homosexuality, adultery, sexual immorality and a decision to let a woman preach is severe; however, I think I get their point.

If I must choose between any statement of faith and scripture then I'll go with scripture. Taking away the Council's comments regarding the more severe items I do believe they are right on in their understanding regarding a woman preaching. I believe you are wrong as are other dear followers of Christ who use the umbrella of elder authority argument to allow a woman to preach in their church. I'd leave a church if that happened and it wasn't corrected.

Also, Beth Moore is a really good preacher. And, the leadership in SBC doesn't have the guts to call her that; instead, they themselves crucify one group (Irving BC)while allowing this other large plank in their eye to go unaddressed. I'm saying I agree with your using Beth Moore as an illustration in your post.

"Could it be that their point is simply that if a group of Christians - church, apparently driven by the desire to culturally accommodate, successfully navigated their way around "problem passages" regarding women preaching yet not pastoring that they also might be tempted to accommodate to culture in other ways? Certainly the linkage between Homosexuality, adultery, sexual immorality and a decision to let a woman preach is severe; however, I think I get their point."

That is what is so bizarre about this whole topic. It has nothing to do with accommodating the culture. That is a strawman. Homosexuality and adultery (even pedophilia) is rampant in Patriarchal cultures. It always has been so I could make the same argument that as the SBC moves more toward Patriarchy as Russell Moore advises, the opportunity for men to make new rules about what constitutes sin would be there. We are even seeing the beginnings of it with Bruce Ware teaching that unsubmissive wives trigger abuse from husbands. (Yes, he said abuse is a sin but he also said unsubmissive wives trigger abuse. An abuser does not need a special trigger. Anything will do and the abuser gets to decide when she is unsubmissive!)

We see other Talmudic rules coming down the pike to prove inherent hierarchies in the church and in marriage such as teaching eternal subordination within the Trinity. As if there is not united will within the Trinity and a chain of command. (Who does the Holy Spirit report to?)

It all boils down to those who WANT authority over others. Why? That is not what scripture teaches. It teaches the much harder path of servanthood and the mutual submission of all believers to each other.

The message for thousands of years was that women were UNEQUAL and easily deceived. About 60 years ago this position would not fly anymore thanks to some decent scholarship so now some have to admit that women are equal but get around that by teaching they are unequal in roles. (Whatever roles are, I cannot find them in scripture). They even want us to believe that women have a 'work' to be saved or sanctified. Bearing Children. That is not very 'Baptist'.

But now, the average person can read an interlinear and study Greek and find that Paul was referring to ONE woman and that authenteo is not so easily defined since it is used only ONCE in the NT. Even men are not to 'authenteo' another man! Yet we have built a whole religion around a few hard to define Greek words and some very bad translations. (ESV translation footnote of Gen 3:16 is an abomination)

We could be as wrong about women as we were about slavery. And there were some great theologians like Dabney who taught that slavery was biblical. What they failed to see is what slavery did to the slave owner. Now we have the same predicament. What is this issue doing to men who want so badly to have authority over others? Dr. Klouda rings a bell.

The ONLY authority is the Word of God, in the Body of Christ. All the rest are functions and giftings. We are not to lord it over but to submit to one another.

There's a matter in the text of 1 Tim 2 that most people miss, viz. that the restrictions in 2:12 are to be applied in the context of local church worship (1 Tim 2:8, "in every place" [topos], i,e, in every place of worship) - not outside of it.

Getting back to Wade's point..."Having some evangelicals calling what their conservative brothers in Christ decide to do in their church (a woman teaching the Bible to men) a "great moral concern."

How to we determine then what is "great moral concern" versus "minor moral concern" or no concern at all? If women preaching does not qualify as a great moral concern what about homosexuality? Could the biblical prohibitions also reflect premodern cultural norms as well? (which BTW, I am OK with going down this path).

For some I know this is a slippery slope but yet also one that I think is unavoidable. If we are to remain relevent to our culture (which Jesus and Paul both were) then I think we need to honestly wrestle with this issue and not eisegete our way to our foregone conclusions.

You know, I truly enjoy reading what other folks think and I can usually find a nugget or two out of everyone’s opinion…yea that goes for KMC too :) So let’s cut to the chase shall we? If the SBC officially recognized female pastors and elders, would you stay or would you go?

Question: What did she say when she preached? I haven't read that anywhere. Was it the kind of message that people would be saying "Good message, pastor" if a man had preached it or otherwise? Was it heresy or something that brought people closer to God? It seems to me that would be a logical question to ask.

Another question: How does being a woman (a state of being) compare to ACTIONS such as activities in the sexual realm of life? There are slippery slopes everywhere, but I don't see the connection in this one.

Still another: You men who place so great importance in a verse in I Timothy 2 about women, do you raise holy hands in prayer without disputing (same chapter)? Do the women in your life (who, I suppose submit to you in everything) wear gold or pearls or braid their hair? I wouldn't be surprised if you have even given them gold rings to wear. (same chapter). I hope you have helped your wives bear children so they may be saved through childbearing (same chapter)!!!

It took too long for many people to recognize that people whose skin color differed from theirs were equally human. How much longer do we have to wait before they decide the same thing about the shape of a person's skin?

Good words, Lydia. Jesus told his disciples that the Gentiles lord it over others but that it should not be that way with his disciples. Have some of these people decided that was a cultural thing that doesn't apply to Christians today?

You ask an interesting question, and rather than answer it, I am throwing in an observation about it.

When did the Southern Baptist Convention become a denomination that gave top down "instructions" to the local church instead of a grassroots, bottom up organization of loosely affiliated, autonomous churches that cooperate for the sake of world missions and evangelism?

Now, to answer your question. We ALREADY have Southern Baptist Churches that have WOMEN pastors - they give to the Cooperative Program (and probably CBF as well), they give to Lottie Moon, they participate in cooperative missions - they just probably don't send messengers to the Convention. I guarantee you, the IMB, the Executive Committee of the SBC, and others DO NOT send the money back.

I might agree that that Paul's instruction in 1 Tim.2:11-14 was culturally conditioned / specific to the setting in which the local church found itself and wasn't intended as a prescription for all churches everywhere...except that as regards the specific instruction that women not teach or exercize authority over a man in the context of the local church is preceded in verse 11 stating that (by implication) instead of giving instruction) a godly woman in the local church should quietly and submissively receive instruction.

After the prohibitions of verse 12 he then follows with (not a localized illustration of why a woman shouldn't teach or have authority over a man in the local church) an illustration that reaches back to the order of creation and then to the deception in the fall.

It seems that Paul is alluding to the fact that God - at creation - intended for there to be a certain role order in the home. Paul seems to be using this as an illustration of how the local church home / family is to function as well.

It seems to me that Paul is making a point that in the church those that exercise authority by preaching and teaching biblical instruction are to be only men.

Where am I going wrong with my understanding here?

Oh, and Susie, yes, I do raise my hands in prayer often even as I try to not have ill feelings of dispute with other men in the church. And, yes, at least in what I believe is the spirit of what Paul is instructing in the passage my wife doesn't put on an ostentatious show in church - showing off her wealth of gold, fancy hair styles, or whatever. She is truly seeking the beauty from within and not to distract others in the local assembly. She does many good works and is discreet and modest.

I get your point but I do think that all things are not equal as you seem to be making them from the 1 Tim.2:9-15 passage as Paul seems to be trying to bring a point home with the broader illustrations as mentioned above.

"...except that as regards the specific instruction that women not teach or exercize authority over a man in the context of the local church is preceded in verse 11 stating that (by implication) instead of giving instruction) a godly woman in the local church should quietly and submissively receive instruction. "

Those are words of permission. LET HER her learn in stillness and subjection. This would be the way any NEW believer would learn. Even a male one. The 'woman' is singular. Not plural.

"After the prohibitions of verse 12 he then follows with (not a localized illustration of why a woman shouldn't teach or have authority over a man in the local church) an illustration that reaches back to the order of creation and then to the deception in the fall."

This makes no sense because we see Paul assuming women are prophesing in the church at Corinth in 1 Corin 11. He is simply talking about whether they should do it with head coverings or not. "Prophesying" has not changed as many would have us believe.

"It seems that Paul is alluding to the fact that God - at creation - intended for there to be a certain role order in the home. Paul seems to be using this as an illustration of how the local church home / family is to function as well. "

Paul never 'alludes' to anything so important! Neither does God! Not once in Genesis 1-2 does God make it clear that Adam is Eve's ruler. He says both are given dominion over the earth in Gen 1. It cannot be proven with Ezer, either, as God is shown to be our Ezer in the OT. These ideas of Adam as Eve's authority figure are read into the account. Animals were created before Adam so we need to be careful about 'creation order'. :o)

There has to be something missing and the missing piece is the historical context. What can we learn from this passage. Exactly what 1 Timothy is about: False teaching and dealing with it. This woman was a false teacher probably to her husband (she and 'they'...gune and aner).

We do know for a fact there was in Ephesus a 'wonder of the world' temple to Artemis. And one thing taught there was that Eve was created first and that certain practices would keep women safe in childbirth. (A huge concern for women back then)

Therefore, we see the reference to Adam and creation order and the teaching that she would be 'saved' in childbearing IF they continued in faith, holiness and soundness of mind. So, even if she died in childbearing, she would be 'saved' because of her faith.

My goodness, any other way to interpret this means a 'work' for women only to be saved. That is a scary teaching. What about women who cannot bear children? Or those who chose singleness as Paul commended?

"Then the more thorny issue of the woman first being deceived is used."

Would you rather be deceived or would you rather "willfully" sin against God?

So men today are to be trusted with leadership MORE because Adam willfully sinned? Is that the logic you are using?

What an interesting day this is-- an accomplished woman and busy mom is nominated for the second highest office of the land. In other words, her abilities, convictions, character, and work history lead others to commend her for a position of authority and responsibility. We are a wonderful country when we recognizes talent in a color or gender blind fashion.

But what happens to a talented, committed and capable woman in SB life? If she's not in a safe role as a women's or children director, then her skills will be ignored or put down or ruled unbiblical. So what would motivate talented, committed and capable Christian women to continue to serve in churches and denominational agencies that so undervalue and fail to appreciate their God given gifts?

'After the prohibitions of verse 12 he then follows with (not a localized illustration of why a woman shouldn't teach or have authority over a man in the local church) an illustration that reaches back to the order of creation and then to the deception in the fall.'

The problem with reading Paul this way is that chronological ordering either must be equal to hierarchal ordering or implies it. What kind of reasoning is that? What does chrnological ordering have to do with hierarchal ordering?

Interesting. I assume a large percentage of Southern Baptist men are about to vote a woman into one of the most powerful offices in the nation, giving her imminent authority over millions. They will campaign for her. They will support her with their hard earned money. They will put her in a position of trust - keeping in mind she is a heartbeat away from the most influential and important leadership position in our nation.

They will talk about how qualified she is. They will talk about how intelligent she is. They will commend her competency.

It is a good thing she is not interviewing for a church pastor position though.

It is amazing how inconsistent people can be about things isn't it. It is very interesting that the Democratic VP is a man and the Republican VP is a woman. I would love to know the thinking that went into the Republican choice. I also wonder if a large part of Southern Baptist men would have agreed with this choice before it was announced.

legalistic may not have been my best choice of words, but it seemed appropriate at the moment. Remember, I did say my opinion was worth what you paid for it. ;)

does a complementarian view necessarily negate the ability of a woman to preach Christ or simply pastor? i think the issue of this particular blog is a woman preaching, so there was no intended attack on complementarians....

I wonder what they think of a woman as VP. For goodness sake, this is just getting ridiculous. If you really look at the passage it is not women in general, it is about a young couple and that the wife is not to rule over her husband. The second verse verifies this type of relationship becasue it talks about Adam and Eve.

If I could encourage each one of you to read a book, I would encourage you to read Scot McKnight's new book "The Blue Parakeet." This will not be a book review (I've already done that on my site) but I will point out a couple of pertinent things he notes that are important to this discussion.

McKnight’s thesis is that none of us practice everything the Bible says. In fact, we pick and choose what we want to practice. But this results from more than just being fallen people. This results in us either ignoring or explaining away explicit commands in the scripture. For instance, Jesus commands us to wash other’s feet. Yet, I have never been in a church where that was practiced. We also don’t stone homosexuals, as ordered in Leviticus. Most churches don’t keep the Sabbath either. We explain these commands away or we ignore them completely.

And we do this because we have we have developed an inner logic to the picking and choosing. Most of us, however, don’t understand that logic. For McKnight, this is an important issue. How we live out the Bible is a pressing question for our day. Until we learn to do this, “we will be open to accusations of hypocrisy. (19)”

There are two points that he makes, one in regard to the authority of the Bible. I will put that quote down below. The second is in regards to women.

The quote on biblical authority is the following:

those who have a proper relationship to the Bible never need to speak of the Bible as their authority nor do they speak of the submission to the Bible. They are so in tune with God, so in love with him, that the word “authority” is swallowed up in loving God. Even more, the word “submission” is engulfed in the disposition of listening to God speak through the Bible and in the practice of doing what God calls us to do. (93)

In other words, if my life is wrapped up in God and living the Bible, I don’t have to go around telling people I believe the Bible is inerrant. It becomes evident in my life that it is.

The second argument regards women. The last section of the book is an application of all he has said concerning the role of women in the church. He finds valid argumentation from the Trinity (the perichoretic idea of the Trinity), creation, the activities of women in both the Old and New Testaments, and re-creation that women can teach and lead men and relegates passages specifically calling for women to be silent as addressing a specific issue in the day, particularly the New Roman Woman.

His argument in both biblical and compelling. The book is due out in November, but I was able to get a pre-pub edition.

I'm an IBC Member, and have been dealing with my own understanding of scripture in light of my IBC membership and my Southern Baptist upbringing. I'm processing my own stance here, which really isn't a stance yet, but I'd love input: http://brettduncan.typepad.com/vintagebrett/2008/08/women-in-ministry-the-irving-bible-church-decision.html

In the meantime, I will agree with Wade that IBC is no doubt a evangelical, scripture-following church of believers led by a godly Elder Board. Though the outcome of their study will always be debated, their process and commitment to questioning the topic should be modeled by all churches.

I agree with Tommy Nelson that this kind of thinking can lead more liberal stances on premarital sex, homosexuality, etc. However, that doesn't mean it will, and it doesn't mean this kind of thinking wrong, and I know for a fact this will not be so for IBC. Part of being a mature Christian is acknowledging and wrestling with tough topics but knowing where you must draw the line on central themes of Christianity.

Poor Wade. You write a good Bible study on the topic of rest (timely for Labor Day)and as of this time there are 11 comments. But one on the role of women elicits almost 10times as many comments!

I sometimes think some of these guys are like the bruised and bleeding Pharisees who tried not to even look on a woman, and thus ran into all sorts of other things. Or Tertullian who even criticized a statue of the Virgin Mary. What are they scared of? Competition for preaching jobs?

As I said before, I have yet to read about the content of her sermon. Weird, isn't it? Were they all afraid to hear what she had to say - might learn something or be moved. Maybe they were all afraid to listen and that's why we have no reports on the content of her message.

I guess I can see the connection with adultery and sexual immorality since those involve men and women together. Now homosexuality, that is men wanting to be with other men rather then women. But wait, isn't that what some of the issue under discussion is about: men wanting to have only other men around them rather than including women? When God said it was not good for Adam to be alone, Eve was created to be a companion, like him yet different. The word referring to her as his helper is usually used of God in the Hebrew. Trouble is, some men sitll want to be alone or only with other men in some places.

I've probably said too much here, but so what. It's way down in the string so probably no one will read it. (And I'm just a woman anyway.)

AMEN! You are right on. Suzie, most men are afraid to answer your questions. They can’t risk their careers and health insurance if they are blackballed in the SBC

I pastor a church where the pastor that was 2 pastors before me had taken over. He was ruling with an iron hand. One of the deacons didn't make his wife mind. The deacon and his wife had a thousand-acre farm/ranch and she knew how to run it, he didn't.The pastor repeatedly told the deacon he was being unbiblical for not making his wife mind and not making her obey her husband.

Well, after 2 years of that, one night there was a knock at her door. It was the law and they had just arrested her husband for hiring a hit man to kill her so he would be rid of her and he could also have the farm.

He went to prison, Hollywood came knocking, and she turned down a lot of money for the rights to the story.

I have been her Pastor for almost 12 years, have watched some of those children grow (under her authority) into great Christian adults and parents.

"If the SBC officially recognized female pastors and elders, would you stay or would you go?"

I'd help build the wall around Southern seminary to keep all the bad people out. It would be forever known as "Mohler's Last Stand." I would be proud to defend the fort.

My answer is, if the SBC ever got to a point where such a motion would be brought up, much less approved, I would have likely jumped ship long before. I could be wrong, but I think we are decades from that, however, the fallen human condition could always accelerate the process.

The strength in our cherished liberty is also our biggest weakness in the SBC. And so some are then pigeonholed as legalistic in reference to their biblical fidelity.

THE QUOTE BELOW IS FROM THE BOOK "Women Against Hitler: Christian Resistance in the Third Reich" ________________________________

Adolf Hitler declared war on Christianity when he silenced the Catholic Church with a diplomatic treaty and arranged for a Nazi Army chaplain to become supreme bishop over the Protestants of Germany. The "Confessing Church" resisted. Pastors were muzzled, put under house arrest, jailed, and held for years in concentration camps. Thousands were drafted and sent to the war to die, while others were murdered outright. The result was a lack of "man"-power.

Adolf Hitler declared war on Christianity when he silenced the Catholic Church with a diplomatic treaty and arranged for a Nazi Army chaplain to become supreme bishop over the Protestants of Germany. The "Confessing Church" resisted. Pastors were muzzled, put under house arrest, jailed, and held for years in concentration camps. Thousands were drafted and sent to the war to die, while others were murdered outright. The result was a lack of "man"-power. WOMEN STEPPED IN. PASTORS WIVES FILLED THE PULPITS IN THEIR HUSBANDS ABSENCE AND THEOLOGINNED (THEOLOGICALLY TRAINED WOMEN) PREACHED AND ASSUMED ADMINISTRATION OF THE ORPHANED PARISHES. WOMEN FOUGHT TO SAVE CILVIL RIGHTS, AND FREEDOMS OF SPEECH, ASSEMBLY, PRESS, AND RELIGION. SOME WENT TO JAIL. SOME DIED.

A SOCIAL AND THEOLOGICAL REVOLUTION THUS ERUPTED WHEN WOMEN STOOD BY THE SIDE OF MEN IN LEADERSHIP POSITIONS IN THE CHURCH---------------------------I AM SO GLAD THAT GOD'S INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF SCRIPTURE DIFFERS FROM SOME.

Wow, some men were great men who were rounded up for thier faith and some were in cahoots with the Nazi's.

Women preached and fought.

I AM SURE SOME PROBABLY JUMPED SHIP FROM THE LOCAL CHURCHES BECAUSE OF THOSE "LIBERAL WOMEN."

I am a bit late getting into this discussion, since I did not know you were blogging again. After reading your blog, and most (sorry, not all), I thought I might add a little different perspective.

I, like the Council, but not like many of you evidently, have come to the conclusion that Scripture does not permit women to preach. Now, I know some will disagree, but wait to hear my point. Under that conviction, which I believe to be Scriptural, it would be complete disobedience for me to allow that, would it not? Would you not consider disobedience to the Word of God, a moral, even a "grave moral concern"? I would, and I am not one to distinguish between different types of disobedience. Perhaps, the Council felt the same, thus Nelson made his comment,and the following comments about homosexuality and adultery.

Let me clarify a couple of things. Obviously, I should not post at 3 am, but I meant I had read most the comments (left that word out),and that women should not preach to men. Before someone asks, yes, I realize what that means in missions, which is why I am under the conviction we need to get men on the mission field.

"Now, I know some will disagree, but wait to hear my point. Under that conviction, which I believe to be Scriptural, it would be complete disobedience for me to allow that, would it not? Would you not consider disobedience to the Word of God, a moral, even a "grave moral concern"?"

Eric, I am really trying to understand those with your position. If you believe this based upon 'another' interpretation of a few proof texts of a secondary doctrine, then you must consider women who use their God given spiritual gifts in ministry (that would include men)to be in sin and perhaps, even heretics? Do you believe they in danger of hell for this?

I am not going to even try and claim that I have it all figured out,as there are aspects I am still working through, but I will try and address your questions.

First, I don't believe a woman who feels called to preach necessarily means she has to preach to men. She can do so to women, which seems very Scriptural, and just as high of a calling. If a woman came to me and said she felt called to be a pastor, I would ask her to continue and pray about it, and reconsider, as I don't believe God is going to call someone to do something, he has said they should not do.

As for if they are in danger of going to hell, I would say absolutely if they are not Christians. If they are Christians, then I would say they are in no more danger than you and I when we sin.

Hope that helps to understand my position a little bit better. Would you agree, that if I am correct in my understanding of Scripture, then it would be an act of disobedience?

Hope that helps to understand my position a little bit better. Would you agree, that if I am correct in my understanding of Scripture, then it would be an act of disobedience?

Wed Sep 03, 02:44:00 PM 2008

My goodness Eric. How could proclaiming the Word to anyone, regardless of gender, be an act of disobedence to God? It is an act of great love to our Savior.

I believe that Satan is delighted with these horrible translations of a few proof texts. It has the ability to shut up half of all believers from proclaiming our Savior to ANYONE, regardless of gender.

I believe the hierarchalists are in sin for wanting to be above others and have authority over others as we are taught NOT to do in scripture. The NT is about servanthood, mutual submission, functions within the Body and all the 'one anothers'. I also believe that you have to ignore other scripture to come to your conclusion on women and that is where you should ask yourself if shutting up half of all believers from proclaiming Christ to ANYONE is really something that pleases God.

Wow. Lots of comments here. I tried to read through all of them, but I may have missed someone else asking the question that I am wondering about. Please refer me to an earlier post if this is so.

There has been hot debate for a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time over the correct translation of the passage in 1 Timothy. So I'm guessing that that issue isn't going to be definitively settled any time soon.

The entire doctrine of women not preaching/teaching is based on just a few verses out of the entire Bible, from what I understand. What is interesting to me is that people who interpret those passages differently are automatically labeled heretical or are accused of being "off." Why is that? There are obviously things that are directly prohibited in Scripture, and there isn't room for debate on them, but this doesn't seem to be one of those things. I'd chalk it up to debates over how the end times will happen: pointless, fruitless, and something we all need to get over.

Anyway, my question is: Is it correct to say that the relationship between the husband and the wife in regards to submission (in which it often conveniently overlooked that we are all called to submit to EACH OTHER, and that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church) should be applied to all relations between men and women? Is it right that any man, just because he is a man, has authority over me, just because I am a woman?

That, I think, is the heart of the issue. And if that's what we are focusing on, then we are focusing entirely on the wrong things, and have turned submission into a great burden, instead of the joyful encouragement and looking out for the best interests of another that it is meant to be...a task that cannot be done silently.

As Marie has said, we probably are not going to settle the debate, but I have enjoyed your thoughts. I don't want it to seem as if I am just trying to win an argument, so I will just post this time and allow you to have the last word on the matter, at least between us!

First, I regret that I posted in such a way that would lead you to believe that I think a woman should not proclaim the greatness of God, or His Word. To that I would first say, that in common language, I differentiate between preaching and witnessing. Plus, I would say we differ in the understanding that not being able to preach to men would make women have to be quiet. As you state, there is still half of God's people they can teach, in fact, more than half when you include children.

I don't believe the complementarian view comes from proof texts, but from the whole of Scripture. Beginning with the created order, which you see Paul argue for often. I do agree that there is an issue of submission, but would argue that submission does not negates or erases roles.

I would also point out that Church History sides more with the complementarian view. I don't think we should easily ignore that aspect. Surely, someone will now point out that at one point the Church justified Slavery from the Bible. To that point, I would say exactly. They allowed their culture and their own views, not referring to history, to dictate their interpretation and it was surely faulty. We have to be careful not to make the same mistake. Though that is obviously not to say that tradition is on the same level with Scripture. So, not a Scriptural argument, but historical.

From a practical matter, and maybe more to Wade's original point, I believe it was Dr. David Jones, from SEBTS, who presented a paper at ETS that demonstrated that churches that allowed women pastors eventually began to allow homosexuality, as well. I don't have the paper to reference, but I think if you just consider the denominations or branches of denominations that allow for women pastors, you will generally see that. Could be an interesting study. The papers conclusion was actually that they reached that point because they so had to reconstruct the understanding of passages that it negated any roles or separation. It would be an interesting study, and perhaps that is what the CBMW was speaking of. I know that they spoke of preachers, but I would imagine most who allow women preachers will before long allow women pastors. Again, not a Scriptural argument, but a practical one.

Overall, I am thankful that this is not a concern of primary doctrine. We can disagree and still fellowship with one another. God bless.

"I don't believe the complementarian view comes from proof texts, but from the whole of Scripture. Beginning with the created order, which you see Paul argue for often. I do agree that there is an issue of submission, but would argue that submission does not negates or erases roles. "

If created order is our guide then what do we do with animals being created first? Shouldn't that be of some significance somehow? What do we read into that?

A role is something we 'play'. A Follower of Christ is something we 'ARE'. There are no 'roles' as Christians because 'roles' are for pretenders.

"I would also point out that Church History sides more with the complementarian view. I don't think we should easily ignore that aspect."

Early church history did not believe in inherenet hierarchy due to creation order BEFORE the fall.

" Surely, someone will now point out that at one point the Church justified Slavery from the Bible. To that point, I would say exactly. They allowed their culture and their own views, not referring to history, to dictate their interpretation and it was surely faulty. We have to be careful not to make the same mistake. Though that is obviously not to say that tradition is on the same level with Scripture. So, not a Scriptural argument, but historical."

Actually, there is more proof in scripture for mutual submission and servanthood between believers than there is for hierarchy within the Body. Scripture does teach: Slaves OBEY your masters. However, Paul said, get free if you can. But scripture does NOT teach: Women obey men. It teaches mutual submission between all believers.

"From a practical matter, and maybe more to Wade's original point, I believe it was Dr. David Jones, from SEBTS, who presented a paper at ETS that demonstrated that churches that allowed women pastors eventually began to allow homosexuality, as well. I don't have the paper to reference, but I think if you just consider the denominations or branches of denominations that allow for women pastors, you will generally see that. Could be an interesting study. The papers conclusion was actually that they reached that point because they so had to reconstruct the understanding of passages that it negated any roles or separation. It would be an interesting study, and perhaps that is what the CBMW was speaking of. I know that they spoke of preachers, but I would imagine most who allow women preachers will before long allow women pastors. Again, not a Scriptural argument, but a practical one. "

Homosexuality is a sin. Being a woman who proclaims the Gospel to anyone regardless of gender is not a sin. To even equate women pastors with homosexuality is insidious.

It would be like me using a FACT of history to show that homosexuality is rampant in patriarchal cultures so... consequently.... there should not be male only hierarchy within the Body because it leads to patriarchy and homosexuality.

"Overall, I am thankful that this is not a concern of primary doctrine. We can disagree and still fellowship with one another. God bless."

So, you could worship in a church where a woman is preaching the true gospel?